Scientific theories are referred to as such, because they make falsifiable and verifiable predictions about phenomena as yet unobserved, and they will therefore be so called however accurate they may be as models; the term theory in no way implies some great uncertainty about the predictions made by a model.
I agree, but the "as yet unobserved" portion is paramount, imo. For all the merits of any theory, it is still just a theory.
It is a theory based on previous observations and empirically established.
Besides, why deny the theory of relativity or that of quantum mechanics?
You are again presuming, although unwittingly. This time the presumption is that I actually deny
said theory. Nowhere in my post did I say such a thing.
Please do excuse me, as you certainly appeared to.
Do you only trust “science” that allows you to hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible or philosophical demonstrations as they were made several millennia ago?
Divine Catholic Faith makes it impossible
to 'accept' so-called "scientific truths" that contradict the literal interpretation of Holy Writ - when the section under discussion is to be taken literally
. There are certain, objective principles involved when reading Holy Writ that render the oft-used "ultra-literalist" dig (which I imagine you do not mean to employ here) meaningless.
The Church does not ask that the first few chapters of Genesis be taken literally, and Pius XII promoted an allegorical interpretation of these chapters in the light of modern science (albeit with monogenism reaffirmed, as that is a dogma).
Modern physics in no way refutes the proof of the existence of God from causality entirely, but only out of motion, so why do you insist on it being true?
I believe this has a connection with your second post, so I will answer it in a moment.